HM Treasury

Combatting fuel duty fraud - evaluation of the first six months of new fuel marker

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.The Government is committed to tackling fuel fraud. HMRC’s oils fraud strategy has seen the UK tax gap for fuels reduce from £1.5bn in 2002 to around £100m in 2013-14. In Northern Ireland, where this issue has been a particular problem, the illicit market share has been reduced from 26% to 8% over the same period. However, the government recognises there is no room for complacency.One form of fuel fraud is fuel laundering – the removal of chemical dyes and covert markers from rebated fuel to give the appearance of legitimate road fuel. To tackle this problem, the UK, together with the Republic of Ireland introduced a new fuel marker, Accutrace, from 1 April 2015.Since its introduction, HMRC have been monitoring its performance. I will deposit a copy of HMRC’s evaluation, based on the first six months’ worth of data, in the Library of the House.The review suggests the new marker is having a positive effect, but it is too early to say if the reductions are sustained, or to establish causality. HMRC will continue to monitor the impact of the new fuel marker and will publish a further update on the first 12 months of data. HMRC will keep the fuel marker under constant review and will take further action if required.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS289

Leader of the House of Lords

The Wilson Doctrine

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Rt Hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the following statement to the House of Commons: On 17 November 1966, Harold Wilson made a statement to the House regarding the interception of the telephone calls of Members of Parliament. He said that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. If there was a development that required a change in the general policy then the Prime Minister would, at a moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it. Together with a number of clarifications to that statement made by my predecessors over the years, this has become known as the Wilson Doctrine. One of the clarifications extended the Doctrine to Members of the Other Place. Another extended it to electronic surveillance that is authorised under a warrant signed by a Secretary of State. I, and my predecessors, have confirmed on numerous occasions that the Wilson Doctrine continues to apply. This remains the case. With the publication of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill today, and also prompted in part by a recent judgment of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the debate in this House on 19 October, I wanted to explain this Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine. First, the interception of communications of any person, including Members of Parliament is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This, and the Code of Practice issued under it, set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception. There is independent oversight from the Interception of Communications Commissioner. This is the current legal framework for the interception of communications. Second, I do not believe the Wilson Doctrine was, or is, an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Home Secretary has made that position clear in the House on a number of occasions. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary. Third, some have assumed that the Wilson Doctrine requires the Prime Minister of the day to approve any proposed instance of the targeted interception of a Member of Parliament. I do not believe the Doctrine itself requires this. It simply indicates that in certain circumstances the Prime Minister would make a statement to the House at a time of his choosing when national security allows. However, it is the policy of this Government that if there was any proposal to target a Member’s communications then I would be consulted by the relevant Secretary of State. Fourth, I can confirm that, in future, as a matter of policy the Prime Minister will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State, notwithstanding the general policy set out in the Doctrine. This applies to Members of this House, Members of the Other Place, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the legislation itself. This means that, going forwards, the safeguards for all Parliamentarians will be the same, with one exception: the Prime Minister will play no role should there ever be any proposal to conduct any such activity by Police Scotland, where these warrants are authorised by the Scottish Government. It would be up to the Scottish Government how they wish to handle any such case, should it ever arise. Updated Interception and Equipment Interference Codes of Practice which make this policy clear have been laid in Parliament today. Fifth, the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, published today, will update the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and provides for even greater safeguards. The Bill will establish Judicial Commissioners to review warrants and also puts the Prime Minister’s role on a statutory basis. This will provide for further scrutiny by an independent judge on top of Secretary of State authorisation. The independent judicial scrutiny, alongside the role of the Prime Minister, will establish a tripartite process should there ever be a proposal to target a Parliamentarian: the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Judicial Commissioner. Finally, I want to clarify today the safeguards for any targeted requests for communications data of Parliamentarians. These are set out in the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice. Whilst there is no role for Secretaries of State or the Prime Minister in approving these requests the Code requires that special consideration must be given by the public authority requesting the data. Harold Wilson made his statement almost fifty years ago when there was no legislation on interception or independent oversight. The world has moved on since then. My statement today sets out how this Government continues to apply the Doctrine in the twenty first century.

Strathclyde Review

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: The Government has commissioned Lord Strathclyde to lead a review into how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in the passage of legislation. By long-standing convention the House of Lords does not seek to challenge the primacy of the elected House on spending and taxation. It also does not reject statutory instruments, save in exceptional circumstances. Until last month, only five statutory instruments had been rejected by the House of Lords since World War II, none of which related only to a matter of public spending and taxation. The purpose of the review is to examine how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament in light of the operation of these conventions. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters, and secondary legislation. Lord Strathclyde will be supported in his work by a small panel of experts:Jacqy Sharpe, former Clerk of Legislation in the House of Commons and Clerk to the Joint Committee on Conventions in 2006;Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel; andSir Michael Pownall, former Clerk of the ParliamentsLord Strathclyde and the panel of experts will not be paid a fee for their work on the review. Lord Strathclyde will aim to submit his recommendations to the Prime Minister by the end of the year.

Department for Education

Education reform: Revised design and technology GCSE content

Lord Nash: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Schools has today made the following statement:We are reforming GCSEs to make sure that they give students the best possible preparation for further and higher education, and for employment. We want new GCSEs to set expectations which match those of the best education systems in the world, with rigorous assessment that provides a reliable measure of students’ achievement. The reforms are extensive and represent a new qualification gold standard.Today, I am publishing subject content for Design and Technology GCSE, for first teaching in 2017. This follows a public consultation which ran from 1 July 2015 until 26 August 2015. The new content moves the subject on from its craft based roots into a cutting edge qualification focused upon both design and making, that will better prepare students for further study and careers.The content emphasises the iterative design processes that all students should understand and be able to demonstrate and which is at the core of contemporary practice. It will allow both breadth and depth of knowledge, without limiting students on the materials they can work with, enabling them to make choices appropriate to their design, rather than creating a design around a particular material.The new GCSE also sets out in greater detail the mathematical and scientific content that students must know and understand in relation to design and technology.These changes aim to ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills to design and make prototypes, using the best material, equipment and techniques, to solve real world and relevant problems across a range of contexts.The new GCSE in Design and Technology will be introduced for first teaching in September 2017.The GCSE content document, and the Government’s response to the consultation are attached to this statement.



Government response to consultatio
(PDF Document, 393.71 KB)




GCSE Design and Technology content document
(PDF Document, 372.92 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS290

Department of Health

Junior Doctors' Contract

Lord Prior of Brampton: My Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health (Jeremy Hunt) has made the following written ministerial statement: This government is completely committed to the values of the NHS – the same values that encourage aspiring doctors to take up a career in medicine. Junior doctors are the backbone of the NHS, but the current contract has failed to prevent some working unsafe hours, and doesn’t reward them fairly. We know also that they feel unsupported because consultants and diagnostic services are not always available in the evenings and at weekends. Today a firm offer for a new contract has been published by NHS Employers. The new contract will be fairer for doctors, safer for patients and juniors alike, better for training, and will better support a seven day NHS. This offer builds on the cast-iron guarantees that I have previously offered the British Medical Association (BMA) including that we would not remove a single penny from the junior doctors’ pay bill, and we would maintain average earnings for junior doctors. The proposals offer an 11% increase to basic pay, with further increases linked to progressing through training and taking on roles with greater responsibility –instead of being based on time served. Our ambition for the NHS to be the safest healthcare system in the world is underpinned by reducing, not increasing, the number of hours junior doctors work each week. Juniors will be supported by improved contractual safeguards – the best protection junior doctors have ever had against working long, intense and unsafe hours. For example, no junior will be required to work more than a weekly average of 48 hours without consent and those who opt out of that legal limit in the European Working Time Directive will not be able to work more than a weekly average of 56 hours. The number of hours that can be worked in any single week by any junior will be limited to 72, down from 91; there will be a 13 hour limit on shifts; and there will be no more than 5 consecutive long days or 4 consecutive nights, compared to the current contract which permits 7 consecutive night shifts or up to 12 consecutive day shifts. Putting patients first is the responsibility of employers and staff. Where doctors are asked to work in conditions that they believe are unsafe, including being asked to work patterns that put patient safety at risk, they will be asked to use reporting mechanisms available to them to raise the issue with the Board of their Trust, and reporting data will now be available for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to use during inspections. We would expect Trust Boards to look at any such report and decide how to respond to it; and we would expect the CQC, when it carries out an inspection, to look at how the Board has responded to this and other data reporting safety incidents and concerns – a tough new measure to ensure safe working. In order to better support a seven day NHS, basic pay will increase by 11% to compensate for an extension in plain time working on Saturdays during the day and on week-day evenings, and there will be a enhanced rates for hours worked at nights, on Saturday evenings and Sunday. The Government has also decided that plain time will be extended only to 7pm on Saturdays - instead of 10pm on Saturdays - and wants to improve training and ensure better clinical supervision from consultants as well. We will offer new flexible pay premia for those training in hard-to-fill training programmes where there is the most need - such general practice, emergency medicine and psychiatry, and we will protect the salaries of those who return or switch to training in these programmes. Junior doctors who take time off for academic research that is part of their NHS training, or which contributes to the wider NHS and improvements in patient care, will get additional pay premia to make sure they don’t lose out. Today, I have also written to all junior doctors in England confirming that no junior doctor working legal hours will receive a pay cut compared to their current contract during transition. Around three quarters will see an increase in pay and the rest will be protected. The exception to this is those who currently receive up to a 100% salary boost as compensation for working unsafe hours. Instead, new contractual safeguards will ensure they are not required to work unsafe hours at all. To see how the offer affects them, junior doctors can now log on to a pay calculator published by NHS Employers where they can calculate projected take home pay. Our preference throughout has been, and continues to be, to reach agreement through negotiations. We have maintained that, in reforming the contract, we must put patients right at the heart of everything the NHS does every day of the week. A fair, sustainable contract with stronger safeguards, together with the greater availability of consultants at the weekends and evenings, is good for patients and good for junior doctors.The details published today represent the Government’s offer in England, which will be for doctors and dentists in postgraduate training programmes overseen by Health Education England. Since they withdrew from negotiations in October 2014 – despite agreeing the need for change as far back as 2008 – the BMA have refused to return to the table. In light of today’s announcement we hope that the BMA will now agree to return to negotiations.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS288